Do the authors of the NT consider Genesis a literal book of the Bible?

[Rival]

No, the evidence is the text itself and it is specifically literal.



STAY on topic this thread is about the authors of the NT ONLY. Chrich Fathers and early scholars will be covered in a separate thread. Absolutely nothing you have asserted has addresed the sitations of the NT that specifically described the Genesis stories of Adam and EVe and Noah as literal history.

Dude, Philo influenced the thinking of the NT authors.

Philo didn't necessarily believe in a literal reading of Genesis.

Ergo, the NT authors, influenced by Philo, may also not have believed in a literal reading of Genesis.

Everything the NT authors wrote is available for you to read. No-one else has any more information on them at all unless it comes from the Church Fathers, so you're asking a question which only answer can be 'We don't know but can speculate based on...'

And what we're speculating based on is Philo.

Your issue here is that you don't seem to want to acknowledge any other answer than 'Yes they all took it totally literally' in order to prop up your caricature of Christianity.

 

[Augustus]

No, the evidence is the text itself and it is specifically literal.

No, that's just your assertion based on no particular knowledge, scholarship or understanding of the historical context.

STAY on topic this thread is about the authors of the NT ONLY. Chrich Fathers and early scholars will be covered in a separate thread. Absolutely nothing you have asserted has addresed the sitations of the NT that specifically described the Genesis stories of Adam and EVe and Noah as literal history.

If you think that was a) about "church fathers" or b) "off topic" it pretty much illustrates you don't care about historical context and are just asserting whatever you want to be true in lieu of a reasoned argument.

Feel free to actually address the substance of the post if you like...

 

[pearl]

The majority of Christians up until the 20th century and beyond consider Genesis literal.

Because of fundamentalism, the new kid on the block.

 

[Rival]

The majority of Christians up until the 20th century and beyond consider Genesis literal.

No, this is a Victorian ideology and a generally US based Protestant belief.

 

[Rival]

"The literalist reading of some contemporary Christians maligns the allegorical or mythical interpretation of Genesis as a belated attempt to reconcile science with the biblical account. They maintain that the story of origins had always been interpreted literally until science (and, specifically, biological evolution) arose and challenged it. This view is not the consensus view, however, as demonstrated below:"

"Some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and theologian who is also a distinguished physicist, states in his "Bible and Science" (Christendom Press, 1996):

:Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fuelled literalism... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers." (Jaki, pages 110-111)"

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis (en-academic.com)

 

[shunyadragon]

lleg

"The literalist reading of some contemporary Christians maligns the allegorical or mythical interpretation of Genesis as a belated attempt to reconcile science with the biblical account. They maintain that the story of origins had always been interpreted literally until science (and, specifically, biological evolution) arose and challenged it. This view is not the consensus view, however, as demonstrated below:"

"Some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and theologian who is also a distinguished physicist, states in his "Bible and Science" (Christendom Press, 1996):

:Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fuelled literalism... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers." (Jaki, pages 110-111)"

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis (en-academic.com)

Again , , , we are dealing with the beliefs and views of the authors of the NT. Later allegorical interpretations and literal views will be discussed in a separate thread.

Please address the NT and the views and citations of the authors of the NT.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, this is a Victorian ideology and a generally US based Protestant belief.

Victorian ideology?!?!?!? The belief in a literal view of Genesis and the Pentateuch goes back to the authors of the NT. Please address this issue and stay on topic.

 

[Rival]

lleg


Again , , , we are dealing with the beliefs and views of the authors of the NT. Later allegorical interpretations and literal views will be discussed in a separate thread.

Please address the NT and the views and citations of the authors of the NT.

Do you realise that Philo lived before the NT authors wrote, right?

 

[Rival]

Victorian ideology?!?!?!? The belief in a literal view of Genesis and the Pentateuch goes back to the authors of the NT. Please address this issue and stay on topic.

Yes, literal interpretations of Genesis abounded in Victorian times as a backlash against the evolutionary theory, generally, and by US Protestants as part of their own literalist view. This is a view specific to a certain kind of Christianity generally stemming from 19th century revivalism. Prior to this many other views can be found, as after this many views can be found. There was never a unitary view of Genesis as being totally literal. You won't find that at any point in history.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are questions concerning how Genesis should or may be interprete. some lean toward the allegorical for parts of Genesis and the Pentateuch, and others consider the literal for most of Genesis. The issue in this thread is how the authors of the NT understood and interpreted Genesis including most of the Pentateuch.

A later thread will address how the Church Fathers and Early scholars considered the interpretation of Genesis.

I am taking the view that the authors of the NT considered Genesis to be literal and Divinely inspired as written. This does not eliminate other moral and symbolic application of the Genesis text.

.

Jesus obviously did.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dude, Philo influenced the thinking of the NT authors.

Dude, OFF Topic. If you believe this cite the the NT to support your argument. The view of the Curch Fathers aqnd later scholars is a separate thread.

As far as this thread goes if you cannot cite the NT to support your argument you have no argument.

Ergo, the NT authors, influenced by Philo, may also not have believed in a literal reading of Genesis.

Ergo?!?!? Meaningless without supporting citations from the the NT.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, literal interpretations of Genesis abounded in Victorian times as a backlash against the evolutionary theory, generally, and by US Protestants as part of their own literalist view. This is a view specific to a certain kind of Christianity generally stemming from 19th century revivalism. Prior to this many other views can be found, as after this many views can be found. There was never a unitary view of Genesis as being totally literal. You won't find that at any point in history.

Read Martin Luther.

 

[Rival]

Dude, OFF Topic. If you believe this cite the the NT to support your argument. The view of the Curch Fathers aqnd later scholars is a separate thread.

As far as this thread goes if you cannot cite the NT to support your argument you have no argument.




Ergo?!?!? Meaningless without supporting citations from the the NT.

Let me try again.

We only have the writings of the New Testament that you also have.

No one knows for certain what they believed about Genesis.

No one in the world can answer your question.

No-one.

At all.

Do you understand?

But we can make educated guesses based on what those who lived before the NT authors believed about Genesis.

 

[Rival]

Read Martin Luther.

You don't understand me.

I said a unitary view. Not everyone believed the same thing about the book of Genesis. People had individual views. What don't you get, here?

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't understand me.

I said a unitary view. Not everyone believed the same thing about the book of Genesis. People had individual views. What don't you get, here?

Does not address the subject of the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me try again.

We only have the writings of the New Testament that you also have.

No one knows for certain what they believed about Genesis.

No one in the world can answer your question.

No-one.

At all.

Do you understand?

But we can make educated guesses based on what those who lived before the NT authors believed about Genesis.

You simply have to address the subject of the thread, What did the authors say about Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood and also Moses if you wish.

The shotgun approach has no meaning in this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don't understand me.

I said a unitary view. Not everyone believed the same thing about the book of Genesis. People had individual views. What don't you get, here?

Your supposed unitary view has no meaning in this thread. Your avoiding the topic of the thread.

You simply have to address the subject of the thread, What did the authors say about Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood and also Moses if you wish?

 

[Rival]

You simply have to address the subject of the thread, What did the authors say about Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood and also Moses if you wish.

The shotgun approach has no meaning in this thread.

They didn't say anything meaningful enough for us to know; that's the point.

The NT authors exegete the Tanakh/OT in various ways for various purposes. You appear to be looking for a single view that just didn't exist. The authors simply do not give us enough information for us to reliably know. There's no easy answer to the question you are asking, but whenever we bring up evidence from outside you chuck it away. Using the NT alone is insufficient.

 

[Rival]

Your supposed unitary view has no meaning in this thread. Your avoiding the topic of the thread.

You simply have to address the subject of the thread, What did the authors say about Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood and also Moses if you wish?

By 'unitary view' I mean not everyone shared the same view.

There was no unitary view of Genesis among any group of people at any time.

 

[Rival]

@shunyadragon have you ever read the NT?